The notion that at the end Che was presiding over the executions of "hundreds" of political prisoners sounds like mad dog right wing propaganda. A quick glance at the Wikipedia page cites Amnesty International as estimating less than three hundred political executions up til 1987! Long after Che left the Cuban government I might add. The number of executions taking place within the revolutionary period is unknown but not at all the "end," falsifying the implication of inevitable development of Communist tyranny.

The general quality of the gusano writing on Cuba is illustrated by the claim that some Cuban is the political prisoner held the longest worldwide, at thirty years. I would nominate Leonard Peltier myself. The rebuttal from the right winger (overt or crypto,) would of course be, but Peltier is not a political prisoner! But, then, is everyone really a political prisoner the gusanos say is? And how many of them are guilty of things that would be illegal under pretty much any legal system? And how does this compare to the murders by Colombian death squads and Mexican federales who are being supported by the US government?

No, he really is. He may have started out as a man who cared about people and wanted to end economic inequality, but in the end, the guy was presiding over the executions of hundreds of political prisoners in Cuba.

Click to expand...

That would still make him a better person than not only Bin Laden but the dictator Batista who he helped overthrow and many of the other despots we have supported.

Hell, we already have all the morons in Che shirts and that was only about fifty years ago.

Click to expand...

Che is hardly an apt comparison with Bin Laden.

Click to expand...

No, he really is. He may have started out as a man who cared about people and wanted to end economic inequality, but in the end, the guy was presiding over the executions of hundreds of political prisoners in Cuba.

Click to expand...

Yeah, people need to get over idea that their politics require them to turn a blind eye to what a bastard Che (and Castro for that matter) was.

Even if you believe that their predecessors were bad guys too and even if you support a more socialist style of government, that doesn't require you to blindly support these two, any more than aversion to bigotry against Islam requires you to support Bin Laden.

Yeah, people need to get over idea that their politics require them to turn a blind eye to what a bastard Che (and Castro for that matter) was.

Even if you believe that their predecessors were bad guys too and even if you support a more socialist style of government, that doesn't require you to blindly support these two, any more than aversion to bigotry against Islam requires you to support Bin Laden.

Click to expand...

I never claimed Che was a saint or even a nice guy, just that he wasn't as bad as Bin Laden or Batista. Learn the difference.

True, he was unable to kill as many people as Bin Laden but not really for lack of trying. More for lack of opportunity.

Click to expand...

No, more of a lack of trying.

Click to expand...

Whether or not you think Che or bin Ladin are guilty of equivalent crimes, the basic principle -- that people who did horrible things or fought for oppressive causes can later be lionized as somehow good or heroic by subsequent political movements -- remains an apt comparison. The question is not "Was Che as bad as bin Ladin?" The question was, "Did Che commit atrocities or fight for an oppressive cause, and was that fact later whitewashed to create a heroic image?" The answer is yes, and yes -- just as happened with Guy Fawkes and the same could, in theory, happen with bin Ladin.

^^^And Frank Miller sees Occupy Wall Street as fighting for an oppressive cause. He displays every bit as much logic in thinking so as you do in seeing Che's cause as oppressive because the simple truth is that you both share much of the same reasoning behing your antiCommunism. In fact, he's ahead of you, being much more consistent. Communism in Cuba after the revolution has been much less violent than ordinary capitalist business as usual in the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean. What you're really saying is that you approve of the Tonton Macoutes and Colombian death squads.

^^^And Frank Miller sees Occupy Wall Street as fighting for an oppressive cause. He displays every bit as much logic in thinking so as you do in seeing Che's cause as oppressive because the simple truth is that you both share much of the same reasoning behing your antiCommunism. In fact, he's ahead of you, being much more consistent. Communism in Cuba after the revolution has been much less violent than ordinary capitalist business as usual in the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean. What you're really saying is that you approve of the Tonton Macoutes and Colombian death squads.

Click to expand...

Condemning one system's abuses is not the same thing as condoning its rival's abuses. Believe it or not, it's not an "either-or" choice. I'm perfectly happy to condemn communism and capitalism.

True, he was unable to kill as many people as Bin Laden but not really for lack of trying. More for lack of opportunity.

Click to expand...

No, more of a lack of trying.

Click to expand...

Whether or not you think Che or bin Ladin are guilty of equivalent crimes, the basic principle -- that people who did horrible things or fought for oppressive causes can later be lionized as somehow good or heroic by subsequent political movements -- remains an apt comparison. The question is not "Was Che as bad as bin Ladin?" The question was, "Did Che commit atrocities or fight for an oppressive cause, and was that fact later whitewashed to create a heroic image?" The answer is yes, and yes -- just as happened with Guy Fawkes and the same could, in theory, happen with bin Ladin.

Click to expand...

In fact, to play devil's advocate, one could legitimately argue that Bin Laden is actually more admirable than Che.

Bin Laden, to borrow an argument some have made, saw himself as a freedom fighter attacking an outside enemy (western society) attempting to subjugate the Muslim world. He was attacking an invader, that argument goes.

Che was killing his own people, largely in an attempt to suppress opposition.

...in order to truly discuss Miller's post, one must be able to discuss the OWS movement itself: it's goals, its tactics, its membership....

Click to expand...

Miller claimed that the Occupy Movement was, in essence, a bunch of criminals. The arrest records would seem to bear this out. There have been many, many, more arrests than one saw at a Tea Party rally, more than three hundred, in fact.

All of which tends to make Miller look at least a bit less crazy than some have alleged.

I suppose one can say "yeah, but...you can't judge an entire movement by 300+ members."

However, the Occupy Movement wants us to think of them as some sort of unified force (hence, the "we are the 99%" rhetoric).

There is also the fact that there weren't 300 arrests of tea partiers.

Finally, it comes back to hypocrisy. There were far too many people, including celebrities and comic book professionals, who wanted to smear the entire "tea party" movement for things that had nothing to do with them (see, eg, the Giffords shooting). But when the "Occupy" clowns are found to have hundreds of thugs in their midst, many on the left suddenly says "oh, no, we can't have anyone generalize them. That wouldn't be civil."

Based on the arrests so far, Miller seems to be more accurate than, say, Janeane Garofalo.